Is North Korea really a problem?

[docyabut2]

 Again I don't think  NK will take the suicide note, not like Iran or Isis ,with the ideology of suicide bomber behind a nuke. They believe out of utter chaos, they will rule.

Edited April 17, 2017 by docyabut2

[AnchorSteam]

5 hours ago, SNR said:

I clearly hit a nerve.

Heh heh, say that if you like, but right back at you, Daffy.

5 hours ago, SNR said:

It is about N Korea but show me a thread where it doesn't go off track?

The problem with that is YOU are the OP for this thread. If you are de-railing your own thread, the preponderance of the evidence has clearly shifted against the direction you wanted it to go.

5 hours ago, SNR said:

I haven't supported or covered for lil' Kim once and bother to read almost all my previous posts regarding America and you'll find I supported Trump especially when he said he wanted to get on with Russia. The truth is he's the same as if not worse than the rest. 

And yes although I have always enjoyed American films and culture and generally liked America/Americans I do believe the last few presidents have been warmongers. Live in denial all you want it's your fault.

Whoa!

You support Trump wanting to "get it on with Russia", and in the very next paragraph you call the last few presidents war-mongers so that you can say it's all our fault?

You might want to just let this thread go, for the sake of your own rep.

Just sayin'... 

[F3SS]

I think he meant to say get along with Russia. Trump never said he wanted to get it on with them.

[MWoo7]

hahhhhhhhhhhhhhh get it on, hahhaha YEAH LETS GET IT ON ! now that would be a nut case !

[SHaYap]

Think we need a bit of that Marvin Gaye kinda break ...

~

 

 

~

... let's get it on ....

 

[MWoo7]

[[  Wow great find very cool ]]]~~~ to borrow one from lucky guy or no wait ...brb oh to borrow from COOLGUY!

Edited April 17, 2017 by MWoo7

[bee]

Just now, SNR said:

The difference is Kimmy boy clearly isn't planning this or he would have put all his resources into exactly that instead of building a huge defence system at the cost of billions. But if we're to believe what we've been told all these years then IRAN, ISIS and quite a few of the other Muslim groups would love this to happen.

How many North Koreans have driven a HGV into a crowd lately? Or massacred tens of thousands of innocents across the world? No that's the job of Islamic fundamentals and U.S. Government and its allies.

The real threat isn't and never was North Korea.

 

.

But NK can be used as leverage against China..?

And Kim Jong Un makes the perfect '''evil monster leader''' that brings out the latent bully in so many people 
because of his physical appearance - 

Thanks for the thread and your comments ---  

because it's healthy to give expression to a different viewpoint on these matters ....

heaven knows I would hate to live in NK myself but they have their own history that has brought
them to where they are now and as they are under China's sphere of influence I think it's
best to not interfere too much --  I think their nuclear capabilities are not as good as we have been
lead to believe and don't necessitate a military attack on them - because that could stir up a hornets
nest in the region...

.  

Edited April 17, 2017 by bee
added a bit

[MWoo7]

meanwhile back in NK la la land and king wrong undone still ill, well obviously you don't belong in the box of nuts,

5 hours ago, bee said:

because that could stir up a hornets
nest in the region

thinking outside the box like that is not permissible, ja! ist (streng) verboten.

Edited April 17, 2017 by MWoo7

[imrunningthismonkeyfarm]

21 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

Heh heh, say that if you like, but right back at you, Daffy.

The problem with that is YOU are the OP for this thread. If you are de-railing your own thread, the preponderance of the evidence has clearly shifted against the direction you wanted it to go.

Whoa!

You support Trump wanting to "get it on with Russia", and in the very next paragraph you call the last few presidents war-mongers so that you can say it's all our fault?

You might want to just let this thread go, for the sake of your own rep.

Just sayin'... 

Evidence of what? That I post stuff without bothering to do my homework! Big deal. You say I'm derailing my own thread because I went off track! I do believe I mentioned Iran & Russia in the top bit? So it was clear it wasn't intended to be a Notth Korea onl thread ffs hahaha.

 You clearly enjoy looking for threads to derail yourself as there's a chance this could break into a row and you know it. Which in turn would ultimately get it closed down.

& Come on. The yanks love a war and that's a fact, you know it and using long words doesn't make your point any stronger.

No direction intended either which tells me you're so peeved at me disagreeing with the decision to start a nuclear war that you've misinterpreted it as me being anti American. Wow

[imrunningthismonkeyfarm]

21 hours ago, F3SS said:

I think he meant to say get along with Russia. Trump never said he wanted to get it on with them.

Maybe he didn't use them terms but it means the same doesn't it?

I dunno.. What does get it on mean? 

[Astra.]

On 17/04/2017 at 1:07 AM, SNR said:

The real threat isn't and never was North Korea.

However, he still does remain a threat.

While this fanatical lunatic keeps flaunting his military strength in the face of the world, by launching these test missiles (failed or not) and his obsession with obtaining and dabbling in nuclear weaponry...then he still remains a menace to other countries, and indeed to the world at large. Therefore he needs to be constantly watched and monitored.

[+and-then]

On 4/15/2017 at 2:46 AM, bee said:

.

what I can say at the moment is that I don't want large numbers of North Korean citizens slaughtered 
in a military attack -  

apart from the nuclear weapons and the crazy talk they seem to keep themselves pretty much to themselves -

and if the problem is just the nuclear weapons then can't they be disabled with an Electro Magnetic Pulse
thingy -- or something similar -- ?

After what the NK leadership has said / threatened... I doubt a nuclear missile would get very far if one was launched -
the bases must have been under the microscope for years and contingency plans made for such an event - ?

I'm not sure how easy or possible it would be for them to even get a massive nuclear detonation to work in an
attack situation - let alone actually successfully target the US and this is probably why nothing has been 'done' 
about them up till now...?

Re the OP question -- not sure what the end game could be but it must all be tied up with China somehow --

.

Actually, shielding from EMP is relatively simple IF a country wants to do it.  The problem with NK and it's corpulent Caesar, is that they are also working on submarine launched nukes.  They have about 70 submarines (really?) but I don't think many would be capable of a missile launch.  The issue is that it would only take ONE.  They could even slip one in on a container ship with the truck trailer containers on deck.  It could be detonated in a port or they could erect a launcher and send the thing on a high arc and detonate it at altitude.  BOOM!  It's lights out on the east or west coast and then the power grid might well collapse under a cascading failure.  I don't want to see millions of North or South Koreans die but if my choice is to risk the death of millions of Americans in their place, that's a non-starter.  China has the ability to bring him down and they'd better get busy.

[imrunningthismonkeyfarm]

On 16 April 2017 at 6:37 PM, spud the mackem said:

Is Kim bluffing ? he is certainly trying and maybe succeeding to wind up America,his threats appear almost daily that he is going to launch missiles to Japan , Sth Korea and America and other Countries ,at the moment China is sitting on the sidelines but even they are getting sick of him, and he knows that if he does the launch , his country will immediately be turned into Glass . I don't think he will launch any thing at anyone ,he just wants attention like a kid in a school yard who has a new toy.Maybe we should call his bluff and see his hand before its too late and the world becomes a ball of irradiated cinders where only cockroaches rule.

Wind up America? He's moved his country right next to all the American bases surrounding him. Why has America got bases in S Korea and Japan and subs everywhere? To make the world safer? This is a provocation isn't it? His threats are defensive every one of them. Where were all these threats when India, Pakistan and all the other countries armed up with nuclear weapons?

Immediately turned to glass.. He knows that and isn't stupid but maybe that's what the N Korea haters want.

 

[F3SS]

1 hour ago, SNR said:

Maybe he didn't use them terms but it means the same doesn't it?

I dunno.. What does get it on mean? 

It could mean different things but if the context is hostility then that would mean wanting a fight. 

[LV-426]

3 hours ago, SNR said:

Wind up America? He's moved his country right next to all the American bases surrounding him. Why has America got bases in S Korea and Japan and subs everywhere? To make the world safer? This is a provocation isn't it? His threats are defensive every one of them. Where were all these threats when India, Pakistan and all the other countries armed up with nuclear weapons?

Immediately turned to glass.. He knows that and isn't stupid but maybe that's what the N Korea haters want.

Are you forgetting the whole Cold War, Stalin's plans after WWII - including initiating the Korean War - the US presence in Japan being the culmination of a certain unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, and so on?

There's a lot of history there that can't be ignored.

I'm pretty surprised that anyone can defend Kim Jong-un as simply "defending his nation." The entire political world seems to be in agreement that he should not be in possession of nuclear weapons, even if they can't agree on how to deal with him.

[Likely Guy]

4 hours ago, SNR said:

Maybe he didn't use them terms but it means the same doesn't it?

I dunno.. What does get it on mean? 

He said, "Get on with Russia" which is English phrasing, meaning 'getting along'.

"Get it on with Russia" is an Americanism, meaning quite the opposite.

[Space Commander Travis]

2 hours ago, LV-426 said:

Are you forgetting the whole Cold War, Stalin's plans after WWII - including initiating the Korean War - the US presence in Japan being the culmination of a certain unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, and so on?

There's a lot of history there that can't be ignored.

Huh? The US presence in Japan was because of the unprovoked attack by Japan, so that proves that N. Korea (or Stalin) (or in fact just Commies generally) aren't to be trusted? I'm not sure I follow the logic there. 

[Space Commander Travis]

6 hours ago, Astra. said:

While this fanatical lunatic keeps flaunting his military strength in the face of the world, by launching these test missiles (failed or not) and his obsession with obtaining and dabbling in nuclear weaponry..

Oh, I agree. Hopefully the saner elements in Congress can keep him under some kind of restraint though ..

 

it's a joke, ok! 

[Space Commander Travis]

I do find it very interesting, though, that nearly everyone seems to be enthusiastically looking forward to aggressive war yet again. And most funny of all is that all of a sudden everyone is putting trust in someone who up until two weeks ago many of these same people were deriding as either a bloated orange joke with an absurd hairpiece or as a traitor who'd been put in place by the collusion of Russia's Tyrant to sell out America to the Russkies. It doesn't take much (well, I mean only yet another Existential Threat) to rally everyone behind the Leader, does it. No wonder there's a thriving conspiracy industry full of paranoid people who suspect that it might not be beyond the world's Leaders to manufacture Existential threats and a steady stream of Tyrants in order to rally the people behind them when, for example, their approval ratings could do with a bit of a boost.  

Edited April 18, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker

[Kismit]

8 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

I do find it very interesting, though, that nearly everyone seems to be enthusiastically looking forward to aggressive war yet again. And most funny of all is that all of a sudden everyone is putting trust in someone who up until two weeks ago many of these same people were deriding as either a bloated orange joke with an absurd hairpiece or as a traitor who'd been put in place by the collusion of Russia's Tyrant to sell out America to the Russkies. It doesn't take much (well, I mean only yet another Existential Threat) to rally everyone behind the Leader, does it. No wonder there's a thriving conspiracy industry full of paranoid people who suspect that it might not be beyond the world's Leaders to manufacture Existential threats and a steady stream of Tyrants in order to rally the people behind them when, for example, their approval ratings could do with a bit of a boost.  

If it helps Manfred, I've always considered him dangerous. Because he does so much without thinking first. And just as a side note he acts as though he is the CEO of America, when in reality he should view his position as caretaker, working for the American public.

His attitude irks me.

 

[bee]

1 hour ago, and then said:

Actually, shielding from EMP is relatively simple IF a country wants to do it.  The problem with NK and it's corpulent Caesar, is that they are also working on submarine launched nukes.  They have about 70 submarines (really?) but I don't think many would be capable of a missile launch.  The issue is that it would only take ONE.  They could even slip one in on a container ship with the truck trailer containers on deck.  It could be detonated in a port or they could erect a launcher and send the thing on a high arc and detonate it at altitude.  BOOM!  It's lights out on the east or west coast and then the power grid might well collapse under a cascading failure.  I don't want to see millions of North or South Koreans die but if my choice is to risk the death of millions of Americans in their place, that's a non-starter.  China has the ability to bring him down and they'd better get busy.

.

I understand the argument that if it's them or us...you (we) choose us -

but what happened to MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction..that is supposed to have kept the lid on the nuclear
threat for decades..?

You may have noticed I don't think a major detonation of a nuclear weapon in an attack situation is as easy as
we are lead to believe whether from a launch pad or submarine -although that isn't a very popular point of view --

.  

[Space Commander Travis]

7 hours ago, and then said:

Actually, shielding from EMP is relatively simple IF a country wants to do it.  The problem with NK and it's corpulent Caesar, is that they are also working on submarine launched nukes.  They have about 70 submarines (really?) but I don't think many would be capable of a missile launch.  The issue is that it would only take ONE.  They could even slip one in on a container ship with the truck trailer containers on deck.  It could be detonated in a port or they could erect a launcher and send the thing on a high arc and detonate it at altitude.  BOOM!  It's lights out on the east or west coast and then the power grid might well collapse under a cascading failure.  I don't want to see millions of North or South Koreans die but if my choice is to risk the death of millions of Americans in their place, that's a non-starter.  China has the ability to bring him down and they'd better get busy.

So you don't think the sudden increase in bluster from America's current President - that's he's more or less openly said that he wants to destroy them same as Syria and Iran - might have any bearing on N. Korea's leader's blustering? There might not be some mutual blustering here, and that America's current president might actually be contributing to it through his new found realisation that blustering aggressively to various countries is really great for his approval ratings?

[+and-then]

Just now, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

So you don't think the sudden increase in bluster from America's current President - that's he's more or less openly said that he wants to destroy them same as Syria and Iran - might have any bearing on N. Korea's leader's blustering? There might not be some mutual blustering here, and that America's current president might actually be contributing to it through his new found realisation that blustering aggressively to various countries is really great for his approval ratings?

I guess I missed the threat to destroy Syria, Iran or NK.  Could it be that you are exaggerating a wee bit?  Are you saying that Kim is blustering because of Trump?  This guy has been blustering for years, just like his father before him.  He wants some more goodies like his daddy got from Bill Clinton.  Trump does what Trump wants to do.  Kind of like most presidents do. I have no need to defend him.  When some nut-job with nukes begins to regularly threaten your country, get back to me and we can talk about which options seem appropriate and what constitutes an an acceptable degree of "counter-bluster".

[Space Commander Travis]

Just now, and then said:

I guess I missed the threat to destroy Syria, Iran or NK.  Could it be that you are exaggerating a wee bit?

Oh come on, attacking Iran has been a constant in his foreign policy ever since he announced he was going to stand. And while destroying Syria may not have been a campaign promise, it's certainly his policy now isn't it. And how else could he remove an existential menace to the world (i.e. N. Korea) except by destroying it? Of course his policy is to destroy all of them. And yes, of course Kim is blustering as he is because America's current president is blustering at him; that's obvious isn't it? That's how it always is.

Quote

 When some nut-job with nukes begins to regularly threaten your country

, Well that's exactly how NK sees Trump, surely that's obvious.  

[LV-426]

4 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Huh? The US presence in Japan was because of the unprovoked attack by Japan, so that proves that N. Korea (or Stalin) (or in fact just Commies generally) aren't to be trusted? I'm not sure I follow the logic there. 

It was an answer to SNR questioning military bases in Japan.

The simple answer is history.

The longer answer is obviously more complex, and involves strategic importance.

Let's cut to the chase though, and imagine a world where the US takes a more isolationist position in world affairs - it's not hard to imagine, seeing as people were panicking about that very thing a few weeks ago, including the possibility of Trump turning his back on NATO. Historically it's not that difficult to imagine either, as America was initially reluctant to directly engage in WWII until the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Some people need to step back from preconceptions about America and ask themselves what the political map of the world would look like post-WWII without US involvement. Personally, I don't think it would paint a pretty picture.

Seems to me sometimes, the US is unfairly in a position of "Damned if they do, damned if they don't."